Reframing responsibility-sharing for bushfire risk management in Australia after Black Saturday

McLennan, Blythe; Handmer, John

doi:10.1080/17477891.2011.608835

Cited by 97 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While acknowledging that a broad notion of 'shared responsibility' could be important (McLennan and Handmer, 2012), senior managers in this study expressed disquiet about what it actually constitutes and whether there is a shared understanding of the concept. Their disquiet centred on whether the concept reflects more neoliberal ideas of 'small government' (and therefore a reduction in community services) or of gaps between what can reasonably be expected from populations during extreme events and what they are willing or capable of doing.…”

Section: The Role Of Emergency Management In Community Resiliencementioning

confidence: 88%

Addressing challenges for future strategic‐level emergency management: reframing, networking, and capacity‐building

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mounting frequency and intensity of natural hazards, alongside growing interdependencies between social-technical and ecological systems, are placing increased pressure on emergency management. This is particularly true at the strategic level of emergency management, which involves planning for and managing non-routine, high-consequence events. Drawing on the literature, a survey, and interviews and workshops with Australia's senior emergency managers, this paper presents an analysis of five core challenges that these pressures are creating for strategic-level emergency management. It argues that emphasising 'emergency management' as a primary adaptation strategy is a retrograde step that ignores the importance of addressing socio-political drivers of vulnerabilities. Three key suggestions are presented that could assist the country's strategic-level emergency management in tackling these challenges: (i) reframe emergency management as a component of disaster risk reduction rather than them being one and the same; (ii) adopt a network governance approach; and (iii) further develop the capacities of strategic-level emergency managers.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Emergency Management In Community Resiliencementioning

confidence: 88%

Addressing challenges for future strategic‐level emergency management: reframing, networking, and capacity‐building

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The policy did not address the reality, supported by research prior to and following ''Black Saturday'', that many people wait to see what will happen when a fire threatens before fully committing to a course of action Reinholdt et al 1999). Furthermore, whilst contingency planning was an element of the policy position, it did not translate well into official advice (McLennan and Handmer 2012;Teague et al 2010). The Commission's recommendations led to a revised approach-''Prepare.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Into the firing line: civilian ingress during the 2013 “Red October” bushfires, Australia

Wilkinson,

Eriksen,

Penman

2015

Nat Hazards

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major issue for bushfire management arises when residents decide to leave a safe area and enter the fire zone to rescue or defend their property, pets, loved ones or other assets. Here, we use statistical and narrative analyses of data from an online survey and semi-structured interviews with residents affected by the 2013 "Red October" bushfires in New South Wales, Australia. The survey results revealed that of the 58 % of respondents who were not at home at the time the threat became apparent, 65 % indicated that they attempted to get home prior to the arrival of the fire front. In doing so, many endangered themselves, their family, friends and emergency services personnel. This paper discusses the shortcomings of bushfire survival plans and official risk communication, which do not cater well for household units that are divided or unattended when a bushfire starts. Findings suggest that to enhance bushfire safety and preparedness, emergency managers should acknowledge and speak more directly to the specific constraints to action for particular social groups at the wildland-urban interface, including families with school-age children, commuters and absentee landholders. October' bushfires in New South Wales, Australia. The survey results revealed that of the 58% of respondents who were not at home at the time the threat became apparent, 65% indicated that they attempted to get home prior to the arrival of the fire front. In doing so, many endangered themselves, their family, friends and emergency services personnel. This paper discusses the shortcomings of bushfire survival plans and official risk communication, which do not cater well for household units that are divided or unattended when a bushfire starts. Findings suggest that to enhance bushfire safety and preparedness, emergency managers should acknowledge and speak more directly to the specific constraints to action for particular social groups at the wildland-urban interface, including families with school age children, commuters and absentee landholders.

show abstract

“…The authors do not suggest any is appropriate. Rather, as McLennan and Handmer (2012b) have argued elsewhere, the sharing of responsibility for wildfire management has to rest somewhere along the continuum. However, comparing and contrasting these extremes exposes value trade-offs that are also made repeatedly in more moderate 'real world' management contexts in less extreme and, commonly, less explicit ways.…”

Section: Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 on the horizontal axis, is between control and choice (see also McLennan and Handmer 2012b). In political philosophy, control is valued relatively higher than choice in paternalistic orientations, which accept a high degree of government control over citizens 'for their own good' (New 1999 mandatory evacuation would be more towards the control end of the x-axis than the Australian 'Prepare, Stay and Defend or Leave Early' approach, which has avoided mandatory evacuation in preference for guiding households to make their own informed choices in the face of bushfire (wildfire) threat (McLennan and Handmer 2012b). Thus, management strategies that emphasise greater control over people's actions also tend to reveal greater risk aversion, whereas those that allow people to exercise greater choice are necessarily more risk tolerant in approach.…”

Section: Sharing Responsibility Through Legal and Governance Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposing hidden-value trade-offs: sharing wildfire management responsibility between government and citizens

McLennan

Eburn

2015

Int. J. Wildland Fire

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Developing resilient communities and sharing responsibility for hazard management is the key to Australia's 'National Strategy for Disaster Resilience'. There are, however, a wide range of conflicting views on the appropriate responsibilities of governments, citizens and communities that are not well recognised in the national policy discourse. What the ideas of resilient communities and shared responsibility mean for wildfire management and how these ideas might shape wildfire safety thinking and practice is therefore unclear and contested. This paper makes explicit some of the necessary, but often hidden, trade-offs between competing values that are implicit in assessments of where responsibility for wildfire management lies, and how it should be shared. After describing different ways in which responsibility is attributed and legitimated through legal and governance systems, this paper compares and contrasts potential legal and governance implications of four hypothetical scenarios for wildfire management, each of which portrays a contrasting set of extreme value trade-offs. The underlying purpose of the exercise is to encourage stakeholders to draw on the frameworks to explicitly acknowledge and debate the value trade-offs that are necessary, but most often unacknowledged, in more moderate decision-making about how to share responsibility for risk management between governments and citizens.

show abstract

Reframing responsibility-sharing for bushfire risk management in Australia after Black Saturday

Cited by 97 publications

References 36 publications

Addressing challenges for future strategic‐level emergency management: reframing, networking, and capacity‐building

Addressing challenges for future strategic‐level emergency management: reframing, networking, and capacity‐building

Into the firing line: civilian ingress during the 2013 “Red October” bushfires, Australia

Exposing hidden-value trade-offs: sharing wildfire management responsibility between government and citizens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About